/lit/ - Literature

It pits prole against prole.

It's used to justify many atrocious acts.

>>5527921
No, that's what capitalism does.

>>5527924
So is every political ideology ever.

>>5527911
It's akin to religion.

Nationalism, like racism, is taking an absurd sense of belonging, IMO.

It discourages cooperation both internally (non-citizens or citizens not following whatever ideology are discriminated against) and externally (just look at how unstable Europe was in the late 19th century/early 20th century).

I don't see nothing wrong with nationalism, people tend to automatically paint it as some racist and xenophobic barbarian shit but what is wrong with loving your country?

Let me know because I'm an American and my nationality is usurped.

>>5527944
You mean in that it unites the proletariat and give them a sense of community?

>>5527946
How? Nationalism is an extension of tribalism and has been a fundamental aspect of every nation in history. If you completely obliterate all sense of belonging, society ceases to function because people have no reason to give a shit about each other.

>>5527975
>the proletariat
lol

A sense of community isn't an inherently good thing.

>>5527911
it distracts from class struggle by creating shitty us vs them narratives that only serve the upper classes in the end

>>5527975
>How? Nationalism is an extension of tribalism and has been a fundamental aspect of every nation in history. If you completely obliterate all sense of belonging, society ceases to function because people have no reason to give a shit about each other.
I'm not for obliterating all sense of belonging, but rather I would completely tear down the other. Now, I'm not saying nationalism is all bad - I'm Irish and love my country dearly - but there's an illness to it too, an incompleteness. And it is, essentially, on par with racism; just as arbitrary. Hey, I guess it's all a touch absurd, right? Still, don't half-arse it.

>>5527990
>A sense of community isn't an inherently good thing.
Wherever the left has succeeded in tearing nationalism down, it has been replaced with neoliberalism.

But keep fighting the good fight, comrade.

Japanese Aryan master race

>>5527911
Some leftists didn't.

Then again modern leftists are a bunch of fucking pussies. Aparat from a few, that is snff.

>>5528001
What si neo-liberalism in anyway?
Sounds like a buzzword.

>>5527911
what left? communism and socialism are based on strong sense of belonging which goes very well with nationalism.
Many other ideologies commonly associated with the left loathe the state so it's a no brainer that they would not like nationalism, but they're minorities, really.

>>5527975
loving your country is one thing. hating the others (or think that they are inferior) just because they live outside the imaginary line that delimit your country is another. i think nationalism is too easy to lean towards xenophoby.

>>5527996
>it distracts from class struggle by creating shitty us vs them narratives that only serve the upper classes in the end
How? Nationalism does not exclude focusing on the class struggle.

The west has torn nationalism down for the most part and now SJWs have usurped the class struggle anyways, so that's not a good reason to single out nationalism by any means.

>>5527996
>it distracts from class struggle by creating shitty us vs them narratives that only serve the upper classes in the end

You mean like the communist manifesto did?

>>5528009
liberalism that prioritizes free markets over humanistic concerns or labor unions

>>5528001
>it has been replaced with neoliberalism
you tell it like it's a natural consequence, like seasons, and it's not like that. generally neoliberalism (and it's falses nationalisms) replace the left after a lot of fight and struggle, and wins always because is more powerful (and smart), but not because is better.

>>5528004
>modern leftists are a bunch of fucking pussies

american liberals are not leftists by any definition

>>5528009
Not a political stance as much as a set of economic policies. Google it

They are fine with third world nationalism because it is seen as them gaining a consciousness of their situation to turn against their oppressors. First world nationalism is seen as purely reactionary usually yearning from some strong authoritarian government.

>>5528048
What's the difference?

>>5527911
Nationalism rests on concealing the fact that differences between people in a "nation" have always been greater than differences between "nations" themselves.

>>5528031
>like the communist manifesto did?
clearly there is a difference between world class struggle (proletarians vs the rest) and intercountries-same class struggle. the real limits in a society are not imaginary lines in a map, but socioeconomical differences.

>>5528059
>if a nation is shit, nationalism is good
>if a nation is good, nationalism is bad

>>5528048
Well I'm not talking about those fags anyway.

The left has been massively pussy whipped all over yurope for over two decades now.
The right wingers here aren't winning all the elections because they're just so fucking competent. It's because the left here is a bunch of fucking idiots.

>>5527998
>I'm Irish and love my country dearly - but there's an illness to it too

Also Irish here, doesn't really have anything to do with OP's post but what you said reminded me of this (as I see it) growing trend of self-importance amongst Irish people.

Do you feel that we have this shitty desire to seem relevant?

For example how much of popular humour these days is based off of boring Irish stereotypical platitudes? (hurr Irish Mammy durr Drink hurr Craic)

Actually it's not even limited to just popular Irish culture, how many advertising campaigns (both public and private) have hung off this idea that the Irish built the world, Irish diaspora etc.

Even sport for God's sake, we can't talk about GAA without comparing it to soccer, and masturbating each other about how much harder we are because we play a "mans" sport.

Basically what I'm trying to say is I'm sick of this shitty sense of self-importance we've bred which has led to a sense of entitlement both at home and abroad.

Again, very little to do with OP's post, but I've been dying to engage with someone over it recently.

>>5528040
correct, but i have to say that your descriptions sounds too clean. i see every day a lot of terrible consequences of neoliberalism (i live in a 3rd worl country), and the sense of injustice is incredibly strong

>>5528061
>liberalism wikipedia
make a google search

>>5528075
what he says

>>5528084
well, i don't like nationalism too much, but what you say may be true. different societys in different stages of development may need different things.

>>5528009
Tumblr leftism, obsession with identity politics

>>5528085
It's not like there's really a contest. Politicians like the status quo, "leftist" politicians in europe know very well that being a politician without actually winning elections is easier than the other way around. why else do you think they constantly do the wrong thing at the worst possible time?
the only serious leftist parties in europe are obscure and have very little voters by their side for marketing reasons.

>>5528075
>>5528108
So culture is completely irrelevant to humanity and we might as well discard all of it?

>>5528061
Liberalism is right wing. American left and right is actually liberal and conservative, both of which are right wing. There is no left.

>>5528089
Yeah, I suppose - and it's the same thing. I have a love for old Ireland more so than the new Americanized (went with a "z" for lulz) Ireland though - you know, that bunch whose wars were merry and their songs were sad, just a little island floating off a leviathan and its people trying their damndest to love it... These days it's the same old bullshit...

>>5528131
Forgot pic.

>>5528089
>very little to do with OP's post
not at all. the "bad" part of nationalism (xenophobia) nourish on the silly pride of national cliches, even bad ones. is the first step on looking down on the othersideoftheborder's cliches

>>5528138
what a horribly inaccurate chart

>>5528144
Why?

>>5528138
>one dimensional political spectrum
Into the trash

>>5528137
Fuck, we're not all bad either. I love the drunkenness, lazing in bars, bonfires, etc. - the fighting. I'd say culturally we're the closest people there are, because our culture breeds that in us - no guns, we beat the hostility out of ourselves; too drunk, we need a friend to carry us home; etc. It's hard not to love Ireland dude lol

>>5528129
>one extreme conclusion of an argument is bad, therefore we must go to the opposite extreme conclusion
Yes anon, that's what we have to do. Also we gotta have barcode tattoos and only wear white robes.

>>5528131
>>5528138
The pic makes your point wrong. Both american extremes are on the same position of the global balance, sort of a y axis for its x axis.

>>5528152
War of the Buttons sorta stuff, you know?

>>5528096
I'm a leftist but I was trying to write a definition that both sides could agree on

Personally, I just think nationalism is just plain stupid. National borders are largely arbitrary and subject to change. Nationalism causes a shitton of unnecessary political tension and strife, such as war, hate crimes, and ethnic conflict. It also makes international politics that much harder, sowing resentment and preventing cooperation. I, for one, think that this outweighs any potential benefits of nationalism.

>>5527975
How did you jump from
>nationalism
to
>all sense of belonging
?

Nationalism is a specifically modern political ideology. It's far from the only possible sense of belonging (what, you feel close to your family because of nationalism?), and it's about much more than just a sense of belonging.

>>5528129
what do you mean? socioeconomic differences are inherent part of the culture

>>5528129
Culture died long ago, all we have today is civilization.

>>5528171
nice platitude bro

bet it would get some likes on facebook

>>5528001
>Wherever the left has succeeded in tearing nationalism down, it has been replaced with neoliberalism
Where do you think the left has succeeded in that? I think examples would help.

>>5528151
By definition a spectrum is one dimensional.

>>5527911
Shortly - because it fuels conflict, separates people and justifies many unjust political deeds on completely irrational basis rather than trying to unite people and focus on cooperation in peace. In modern day politics nationality conflicts are extremely prevalent, thus you hear a lot of controversy about them, ranging from referendums of official status of minority-language speakers being failed(Latvia) to pointless separatism(Ukraine, UK) and violent protests(Estonia).
I could go on and write a decent 2000 words essay on this subject but I doubt it is needed in this situation.

>>5528152
>It's hard not to love Ireland dude lol

Don't get me wrong, I do love the place I just despise this new culture that's developed.

As I see it, it's a combination of bog standard Irish stereotypes, being patronized by essentially every other country out there and ladism.

Maybe I'm being cynical but fuck me we act like spoiled children these days.

>>5528077
They are not too much of imaginary limits.
Apart from culture clash zones like Alsace Lorraine (or basically anything between the germanic and gaulish sphere of influence) national borders pretty much boil down to borders between differently developed cultures.

And those do very much make sense. Maybe not for such tiny regional difference like between germany and france (we're getting rid of those anyway), but in a wider sense you can't just forget about these things and say "oh those are just some made up bullshit lines on a map!"

I can fucking guarantee to you - even if the situation wasn't so fucked up down there: If we lived in one state or one organized region with the middle east or even a part of the middle east shit would break up faster than you could say cockadoodledoo. Because we are too fucking different. If you wanted to get rid of nationalism you'd first have to get of all culture of all development that potentally raise tension between people.

And that's just not gonna fuckin fly, no matter if some idealized hippie utopia thinks that shit would work.

"Oh it would work if only everyone would think like me!"

Yeah well no shit. And if everyone thought they were gouangzhou chinese we wouldn't need borders either.

>>5528152
You know, it's actually a thing they use at, like, corporative retreats: they have the employees embarrass themselves in front of their colleagues, because these lowers the employees' opinions of themselves, whilst heightened the employees' opinions of the group; basically the individual comes to rely on the group to define him or her ---and then the fucking Irish do this as a national past-time it's hilarious. I'd say we're an incredibly devoted people tbh.

>>5527937
>No, that's what capitalism does.
They both do. If you are drafted to kill proles in another nation, you're clearly being pitted against proles.

>>5528186
Eh, are you a Dub or something? I'm from Kerry, my mates are all scumbags, murderers, and drug addicts lol

Because they're faggots

>tfw there are essentially two very different uses of the word nationalism, and they get horribly confused whenever people try to discuss it
1. The common meaning: like patriotism, but more xenophobic and nasty and bad
2. The academic meaning: the political ideology according to which the world's population is subdivided into geographical and cultural units of people called 'nations', each of which should be exclusively represented by a single independent state

>>5528197
From Carlow (lol I know) but living in Dublin, why do you ask?

>>5528188
>you'd first have to get of all culture of all development that potentally raise tension between people.

"You'd first have to get rid of all culture and all development that potentially raises tension..." I mean of course

>>5528211
Figured you were a city boy :P
I lived in Carlow for 2 years though, that place is a hole lol where the fuck did you get a sense of snobbishness there?

not the other poster
>>5528188
>And those do very much make sense.
Agreed, but they're hazy at best. So many people who live at the border of their nation consider themselves to belong to the neighboring nation, and vice versa.
Of course the geopolitical situation matters, it's just that people tend to forget that the map is not the territory, and to add to that retardation they add that soccer hooligan us vs them bullshit.

>>5528208
>each of which should be exclusively represented by a single independent state
You can have a nation without a state and a state without a single nation. Most big states have multiple nations and city-states used to share multiple groups that would be considered nations by modern standards all along history.

>>5528219
parent's are teachers, not that they're snobby, but growing up around knackers and scumbags lead to a whole load of resentment.
this snobbishness then transposed to pretty much every other part of my life, welp.

Because the contemporary left is dominated by effete upper class liberals.

>>5527975
>Nationalism is an extension of tribalism
Oh yes, I fucking love tribalism.
>a fundamental aspect of every nation in history.
And this makes it good because?

Nationalism is an ideological invention of the modern industrial state and could not exist without it. Nationalism creates an Other and defines that Other based on arbitrary lines like borders and race.

>>5528226
exactly. and there are parts of the world where borders are product of a very recent political decition. i live in southamerica, our countries borders have nothing to do whith ancient cultures, and most of the population is nationalistic and xenophobic as fuck, even when our nations are pretty failed as states or countries

>>5528138
Hitler as a liberal centrist is actually incredibly accurate.

>>5528239
I suppose. A lot of cunts around the place alright - not the lovely green friendly Ireland we make it out to be. I empathise with the riffraff though truth be told :P Fuck, you'll never make a better friend than in being addicted to drugs with a person.

>>5528245
>mfw african nation borders actually drawn with rulers
shit's ridiculous

Were the Ancient Greeks nationalists?

>>5528244
>Nationalism is an ideological invention of the modern industrial state
lol

Industrialism pretty much single handedly killed nationalism.

>>5528242
You realise people have been making this accusation ever since there was a left, right?

Besides even if you were right, Liberalism is not incompatible with Nationalism.

>>5528267
Ahem.
*coughs* America *coughs*

>>5528004
>you will never rob banks with comrade Stalin

>>5528270
Classic liberalism has nothing to do with modern liberalism

>>5528267
Ha. By killed you mean invented, yes. Britain, France, Germany, Japan, the US. Industrialisation correlates with the invention of Nationalism.

>>5528171
I would rephrase it as "All but the Western world culture is essentially dead, what we identify as a culture is a small set of regional traditions".

>>5528267
i don't see that. i mean, of course corporations are beyond nationalism, but they use it a lot for their goals, and is stimulated as much as they can when it's necessary for their business.

>>5528260
To a certain extent, yes.

>>5528270
>Liberalism
>left
we've been over this

>>5528270
>You realise people have been making this accusation ever since there was a left, right?

and it has almost always been true

>Besides even if you were right, Liberalism is not incompatible with Nationalism.

this was certainly true in the past but clearly isn't now

>Why does the left.. [anything they do]

Because they don't read books. They just swallow ideology from their professors and parrot it to another generation.

>>5528256
green friendly Ireland can be just a sinister (John B. Keane need I say anymore)
Ah I'd sympathise with a lot of them too in retrospect, kids whos lives were basically laid out for them.
Example; guy I was in primary school would spew rhetoric about all the foreign kids in our class. In hindsight its clear that hed been hardwired to say things like that. As he got older/realised his economic situation he grew even more isolated and defensive. Fast-forward to secondary school he's expelled for harbouring drugs in his locker, go ahead a few more years and he's commited suicide at the age of 19.

Now obviously this doesn't apply to all those who grow up in poverty, but it does shine a light on the idea that poverty is a state of being.

What I really can't stand are those "IrishLADs",

>>5528230
>You can have a nation without a state
Yes, but in that case nationalism would demand a state- e.g. Israel. It's a political ideology, hence the 'ism'. If nobody in a 'nation' is demanding a state to represent it, then there is no nationalism.

>Most big states have multiple nations
Yes, and usually independence movements (nationalisms) within them trying to represent those nations. But yeah, there are also multi-ethnic nationalisms- I'm not sure how often they are willing to grant the component parts the title of 'nation', though.

>multiple groups that would be considered nations by modern standards all along history
Pretty sure most historians consider both nationalism and nations a new phenomenon.

>>5528295
you are very far from the truth, leaving appart the opinion over left or right.

>>5528276
So what?

>>5528289
>this was certainly true in the past but clearly isn't now
But nation states are still the main actors in modern Neo-liberal geopolitics. Liberal Nationalism is still around, for better or worse.

>>5528298
>John B. Keane need I say anymore
You need not, I've been barred from his pub for as long as I can remember - you too? lol

And yeah, I get you I suppose. Fuck, I don't pay much attention to that sort of stuff. I know Ireland is a hole, a tiny little island, let the rest of them tell themselves lies.

>>5528282
Corporations are increasingly embracing and appealing to SJW ideologies as much as nationalism. Honestly, they'll embrace anything that isn't a direct threat to them, but when the interests of a nation and the interests of a corporation collide, the interests of the corporation will almost always win.

That's a sure a sign as anything of just how powerful nationalism really is these days.

>>5527911
Depends which left you mean.

Anarchists for example reject the state, so they'd obviously reject a statist doctrine. Whereas Leninists love(d) nationalism as a weapon against imperialism.

More generally, I guess, the left is about revolution, transforming human society according to new ideals, making things new, whereas nations are usually formed from the kind of longstanding cultural differences and accretions of history which are exactly the kind of thing the left tends to oppose.

>>5528313
Supranational bodies are clearly the main actors in contemporary politics, and modern nationalisms arise in resistance to them rather than other nations, which is why 21st century european nationalism has radical potential.

>>5527911
because nationalism is the belief that your country is or was at some point doing everything right and that's not being on the left.

>>5528267
>Industrialism pretty much single handedly killed nationalism
Wow. What history books are you smoking, anon?

>>5528352
Where do you think globalism comes from?

>>5528330
ah sure look't, I only really thought about it after I heard he committed suicide - was also reading dostoyevsky at the time so all the pieces came together.

Could be a lot worse though, as hypocritical as it sounds, a lot of tourists annoy me, not solely because they're tourists mind you. I can't see myself living anywhere else for a long period of time.

>>5528298
>IrishLADs

Is lad culture international? i thought it was just the UK that was fucked.

>>5528336
>Corporations are increasingly embracing and appealing to SJW ideologies
sure. but that depends on where the marketing campaigns is to be done. in less developed countries nationalism is still more powerful than SJW ideologies (sadly, i know this by hand)

>how powerful nationalism really is these days.
i see nationalism as a tool, as powerful as the corporation using it wants (or can)

>>5528371
"ah sure look't"
That fucking owns dude, I've never seen that in text before.

>>5528393
I've always been wondering how I should spell the Irish "sure," but the "look't" tops it off lovely.

>>5528372
God no, Irish LAD culture is a basic mirror of that in the UK- bravado and misogyny.
Which is ironic considering that one of the characteristics of exclusively "IrishLAD #topbantz" is Brit-hating
i.e posts pertaining to "ONLY IRISH WILL GET DIS"
"10 REASONS GAA IS BETTER THEN SOCCER SOMEONE PLZ CARE ABOUT MY SPORT"
(I love hurling btw)

>>5528347
>Supranational bodies
Such as the european Union, and literally the zero other supranational bodies.

International bodies are far more abundant and relevent. Nationalist parties are insular in how they reject this new world order and muddy real leftist critiques of organisations like the eU and UN with good old racist Libertarianism.

Sure, in europe you see far-right Nationalism on the rise, although I see it as reactionary rather than radical potential. In the end parties like UKIP or Front National are just as, forgive the buzzword, 'establishment' and Capitalist as the current Neo-Liberal hegemon in the global North.

>>5528393
haha sound, it's the best "cover all" phrase out there

>>5528403
I love hurling too lol, you're getting worked up over nothing dude. I suppose you're just an independent sort of fella, not caring an iota for anyone's regard.

>>5527911
They don't, they're perfectly OK with people from some random African country or India or wherever being proud of their country and strongly identifying with it.

>>5528412
I suppose the racism and the Brit-hating bit are a cunt - the poor ole Nigerians get an awful hard time. I'm a nice collectivist boy myself.

>>5528412
ah yeah I'm a terrible cynic at the best of times.
Hurling doesn't need to compare itself against other sports though!

Two things I dislike about nationalism. The first is many espouse some extremely narrow essentialist view of the "people" that doesn't take into account of the intellectual diversity among them so you end up with some fags singular version of how everyone should be.

The second is how nationalism conceals differences among the nation. The Roman soldiers knew they were getting stiffed and challenged the Senate. "White guilt" is just a mirrored version of White nationalism because saying that British soldiers were poorly paid, brutally treated, poorly educated with the benefits of colonization serving mostly the few while the costs were socialized with a majority of white people despised, oppressed, and manipulated by their rulers at the time means you can't blame every white cis male for how shit turned out and have to go after the sheriffs instead of the shitty deputies.

>>5528427
I was actually living with a fella from Cork in Carlow (doing an apprenticeship; college phase), and he was a pure RA-head. It was fucking funny though: we got twisted one day and he went off and got a tattoo of Bobby Sands and it couldn't have looked more like a woman it was unreal - I told him to tell people it was his mother. Sure he was alright too though, just a bit thick - be what the boys are or whatever; belonging.

>>5528437
I used always be at him about the Queen being somebody's granny too, he didn't know what to make of it.

>>5528409
UKIP are defiantly not an establishment party, the UK establishment is wholly devoted to the European project, and also to social liberalism.

>>5528437
topkek
my friends family comes from a hyper nationalist family (they grew up during the Troubles).
Hes from Carlow himself but is a RA head through and through. His mothers name was Geraldine, so we took to calling her "Gerryadams-aldine"

>>5528455
lmfao

>>5528452
UKIP is bourgeois, xenophobic, pro-big business and heirarchy, and classist. Sounds like the British establishment to me.

>>5528468
Well I've no story to top that, so... Nice talking to ya mate.

>>5528478
You too laaaad

Because people use it as an excuse to hate imagrants. National identity is not set in stone, outside cultural influence has always helped mold all the national identities people hold close to their heart.

>>5528452
Social liberalism? Sorry, what? Our public services haven't been prioritised since the early 70's.

>>5528491
People also use immigrants an excuse to justify neoliberalism.

What's your point?

>>5528473
>UKIP is bourgeois

They have the most working class membership

>xenophobic

This would pit them against the establishment which is pro EU and socially liberal

>pro-big business

The're anti EU so can't really be said to be pro big business

>classist

this is a meaningless term invented by liberals so they can appear to be on the side of the working class without actually engaging in the struggle to overthrow class society

>>5528493
He probably means liberal on social issues, not social liberalism.

>>5528488
Talkcha kid ;D

>>5528510
>invented by liberals
yes anon also libruls invented putting salt in coffee instead of sugar. they're mean spirited people

>>5528530
The Navy is liberal now?

>>5528530
liberals are evil. That is a simple fact, liberalism is an intellectual cancer.

>>5528534
www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw
you tell me.

>>5528539
Liberalism is cancer, but leftism is AIDS.

>>5528543
What's conservatism than?

>>5528570
Solipsism.

>>5528570
A liberal heresy

>This whole thread

>>5528612
>This whole /lit/
FTFY

This thread is full of right wing psychopaths

>>5528711
who in this thread is a right wing psycopath?

>>5528733
Try to guess.

>>5528765
>tfw you will never have a angry Marxist sodomize you and call you filthy bourgeois fascist over your soft pleas for him to stop
Life is suffering

The only difference between liberals and conservative is the extent they embrace liberal democratic ideas.

Liberalism, communism, and fascism are all competing forms of democratic radicalism, and all sever the masses from a single divine authority.

>>5527911

Because liberals invented modern nationalism, then conservatives adopted it so they abandoned it.

>>5527911
>the left
No wonder you're a nationalist. You just love separating everyone into groups and fostering your sense of superiority over all the groups you're not a part of. Reading some of your other posts throughout the thread reveals more of your polarizing mindset. Everything isn't black and white, right and left, or good and evil, you know?

>>5530199
"Liberal" is just what Americans call the left. A liberal is the rightwing end of the Democratic party, all those on the left are satisfied with calling themselves progressives or something. Those that learn the truth, rabbit hole etc., aren't too appreciated in the media

>>5530236
Technologists ->>>>>>>>>>> Traditionalists -> Fascists -> Conservatives -> Commies -> Liberals.

>>5530284
>Swiss watches ->>>>>>>>>>> Birch -> Pine -> Oak -> Women -> Christmas trees.

Wha?

>>5530261
Would you do that girl, Butter? I only ask because that's sort of how I would look on hormones and redhaired.

>>5527911
The Soviet Block says you are wrong.

>>5530311
Oh I donno. She was cute when I saw her on Colbert.

Everywhere south of the USA is left nationalism playground.

>>5527911
>Mishima
>nationalism
First of all OP, Nationalism is an Enlightenment concept where the State and people take power from the monarch and aristocracy and isn't viewed as that much of a good thing by real right-wingers(conservatives not the capitalist liberal kind) either. Mishima wanted rule by the Emperor, not the State.

>>5527968
well for Europeans it does have ethnic connotations, St least historically. it doesn't really work that way for Americans since we are heterogeneous.

>>5527911
I have the same problem with nationalism as I do with Communism. In theory it sounds great but when applied things tend to tern into a shitstorm.

>>5527911
Because nationalism is a way to do lot of shit that benefits the bourgeouis.
>wars

Wow, the left really think that all nationalism is jingoism and chauvinism and not the wish for self-determination of nations.
All these assumptions.
For example, Japanese foreign policy is bordering jingoism because they want a lot of islands were no Japs live.
Chinese domestic policy is anti-nationalist by beating down on self-determination in Xinjiang and Tibet.

>>5527937
It pits race against race. Actually nations, but frequently nations are defined by race.

Because it encourages racism and xenophobia

Because it is often without any reasoning for pride other than "I was born here"

Because it is constantly used as an excuse to get people to conform, to begin wars, to take away or limit freedoms and justify horrific atrocities

Because it's akin to cheering to your local sports team with much higher consequences

Because it makes people complacent to the crimes committed by their governments

ok so as an extreme leftist (anarcho-syndicalist, but i'm open to most other left wing ideologies) i think im in some position to explain why the left wing, especially doctrinal Marxists and social democrats don't like nationalism.

Marxists see class as the most important social division, and nationality as comparatively tiny. they therefore see the division of the people of the world into nation states as an attempt to divide the proletariat in order to prevent revolution, or at least that is one of the functions of dividing nations up.

the more moderate left dont see all nationalism as inherently bad, however they see serious hardcore nationalism as being both a means for people with evil, as they see it, agendas to rise to power and a cause of violence, hatred and death within society.

>>5527911
>Why does the left hate nationalism so much?
it's irrational, oppressive, vulgar, and attracts the worst people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYd9qbRz2fc

>>5527911
>what is left wing nationalism
>what is romantic nationalism fabricated in 18-19th-century as capitalist ploy to keep the population down

>>5531224
so does social justice

>>5527911
>Why does the left hate nationalism so much?
Mate, the vast majority of 'leftists' in the world today are rabid nationalists.

The 'left'/'right' dichotomy is meaningless anyways.

>>5531299
your point being?

>>5531229
>thinks it's exclusively a capitalist tool.

>>5530311
butterfly is more into arabs

>>5528123
You couldn't be more wrong. You sound like one of those idiots who would identify himself as a "classical liberal" so I assume you thought the prefix "neo" refers to modern liberals or something.

>>5528151
:-DDDD

IM SOCIALLY LIBERAL FISCALLY CONSERBATIVE WHAT ABOUT U GUYS?? :-DDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>5527911
Because most states adhere to the proletarians' enemy.

because nationalism only has an emotional appeal and not an intellectual one.

>>5528031
how the fuck

>>5527911
international communism and its degradations

>>5531693
best and most succinct answer itt

>>5531356
>first line in the post
>>what is left wing nationalism

>>5530904
I once read an interesting article from the 60s or 70s that said nationalism fell out of grace from the western world not because we now feel morally repulsed by it but because nationalism was supported and lobbied for by local capitalists who wanted protection from their hostile, slightly richer foreign equivalents. Since its downfall a free trade, internationalist capitalism became the norm so that strain of nationalism was "outsourced" to the third world were the Pinochets used a similar strong government to protect foreign capital's interests.

I have no idea how accurate that is because it was filled with technical jargon and data and I don't get any of that shit but is an interesting angle

>>5528030

>>5530912
I'd say you're wrong, given that the anti-capitalist left are the only ones who actually fought for the right of self-determination of non-white countries in the 20th century.

>colonialism was 900 years ago dude get over iiiiit

Amazed at the amount of newbie liberals who probably haven't read the most elementary literature posing as "old school, true leftists" with their reactionary positions and "SJW are slowing us down!" nonsense

Should we thank Zizek for this?

>>5527911
My nation is the best one, what a coincidence?

>>5531787
>left are the only ones who actually fought for the right of self-determination of non-white countries in the 20th century.
It doesn't stop being nationalism when leftist do it.

>>5531894
That wasn't the point being argued but thanks for adding absolutely nothing

>>5531840
If you think that's what being a nationalist means you're a fucking idiot.

>>5531924
If you think being a nationalist means anything more than that, then so are you

>all the liberals in this thread

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_03.htm

>nobody has asked the OP to define nationalism yet

>>5531931
>jingoism

Rootless internationalists lacking real values who want to do away with everything the working class cherishes hate political ideologies that put the working classes first and foremost, more news at eleven.

>>5531936
>anime
>mao

It's people like you who give Marxism a bad name. Not that you know anything about Marxism of course.

>>5532209
>not admiring mao

let me guess you're a student "marxist" and you vote for your countries centre left/social democrat party

>>5532248
Not op but please explain the appeal of Mao. How is not just a shitty kid with too much power? Even he himself said that out of all the members in the party he knew the least about economics

>>5532194
Basic social history, my child. Learn it.

>>5532248
see>>5531833

>>5532468
>a shitty kid with too much power
>revolutionary China wasn't heavily decentralized
Maybe read a book or something, mayt.

>>5532486
Identity politics /are/ movementisms though; they don't want to replace liberalism but to merely reform it. Is this controversial now?

>>5532486
>>5531833
>liberals
>maoist

r u giggling fella

>>5527911
Because Leftists wants to abolish the state (sooner or later) where as nationalism demands the creation and eternal continuation of the state.

>>5532545
I think he meant that the 4chan marxists who vocally denounce liberal movements such as gender politics and admire reactionary ones such as Maoism are affable.

Because it may produce a culture and leftists hate united cultures that are not united through their dissolution.

>>5532468
Well, some appealing parts of Mao.

> Idealistic
Whereas most dictators attempt to be pragmatic and cast away purity of their ideological roots as sort of romantic nonsense, Mao remained rather revolutionary and idealistic to end. When USSR degraded into state capitalist dictatorship with the Number 1 gathering as much power to himself to achieve common political goals, Mao actively seeked to reform and revolutionize the Chinese culture, economy and people and take away power from the party in order to have more decentralized economy. Mao's political campaigns were full of military lingo and revolution -era rhetoric - its as if he never became that jaded statesman concerned with doing the usual staff The Prince would have taught him to.

> Critic of USSR
Most communists in Europe and rest of the world were bowing down to USSR for support and help even when they secretly disagreed with its policies and views. Mao was first major communist leader to openly oppose USSR on ideological level (Tito had done it in political level, but in a less polarizing manner).

> Tremendously influential in world politics.
USSR's largest effect on world map was post-World War Europe, after which it did not so actively seek to change and reform the world: USSR was pragmatic, supporting established regimes rather than seeking world revolution. Mao constantly funded and seeked to help new revolutions and regimes all in the colonial world: Korea, Indochina, Indonesia, Burma, India, Africa etc.

> Historical underdog
When USSR tried their type of communism for seventy years and still failed, it can be cast off as a loser in a fair game. When Maos type of communism was brushed aside less than generation after his death in favor of Chiang Kai-Shek type of Capitalistic Party dictatorship. Mao is the underdog, the idealist whose grand plans never came into fruition.

> Didn't stagnate
Mao re-invented his regime in cultural revolution. Compared to European communist movements which were (and still are) struck in 1950s when it comes to culture, values and views, Mao has been very revolutionary and modern.

>>5531346
that

>>5532669
>Maoism 2014

>>5532555
Nationalism isn't about the state, it's about nations, a form of collective people group.

>>5532669
On the negative side, he was responsible for millions of deaths, and severely retarded the progress of the Chinese people.

>>5532809
Jung/Holliday, just go, we went over this yesterday.

It's a destructive attitude. Us vs Them inevitably results in violence.

>>5532669
Good post

>>5532820
>Jung/Holliday, just go, we went over this yesterday.

lolwut

>>5532790
However, most nationalisms, namely reactionary nationalisms, go about creating or co-opting a state for the "nation".

>>5532820
>>5532830
Lol, I got both their names wrong. Chang is her last name and his last name is spelled Halliday.
Regardless, the "muh millions of dead!" needs to stop, it's embarrassing.

>>5532849
keep fighting the good fight friend

>>5532849
>muh millions of dead!

Can't you write anything more intelligent than that? Millions of people DID die, pretending that this line of argument is trivial doesn't erase this fact.

>>5531833
>libruls libruls libruls librus
>GODDAMN LIBRULS

>>5532878
The argument (not that it can be called that, it isn't an argument at all but a thought-terminating cliche) is trivial because you're saying it without understanding what you're saying. You don't understand that China is a gigantic country and has always been one of the most populous country in the world, and that when you say "millions died" you're talking about a population of 500-600 million people (during Mao's tenure, which is what you're concerned with). You don't understand that "millions died" means nothing because "millions died" every year ever in China. Mao is not "responsible millions of dead" but Maoist policy IS responsible for preventing millions of dead by giving farms to the peasantry, teaching them self reliance and modern agrarian science, and allowing them to have access to crops for the first time ever, preventing the wide-spread starvation that is imagined by Western "scholars".
You armchair moralists are quite amazing that you manage to show up every time and condemn "the commies" for their "atrocities" but you don't hear a peep about your own War Against Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Palestine/all of South America.

>>5527911
The left can't gain significant political power in modern capitalist countries without a stead influx of poor people that are easily pandered to by a populist ideologue.

This is the main reason. All other reasons stem from this.

>>5533024
The millions that died due to other causes are not relevant. The millions which died under Mao because of his policies are relevant and are his fault. His policies regarding agriculture were responsible for atrocious famines, not to mention the execution of those accused of dissent. If the Chiang Kai Shek regime had continued, the Chinese people would undoubtedly be better off.

As for your final comment, I am myself a communist. No wars are "my own" wars; the application of terminology implying individual 'ownership' of a war is meaningless. I do however think that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the military action in Libya, were entirely justified as fascism (an ideology you clearly have sympathy with) must be destroyed. You clearly have a problem with making baseless assumptions.

>>5533182
>I am myself a communist. No wars are "my own" wars
>If the Chiang Kai Shek regime had continued, the Chinese people would undoubtedly be better off.
>fascism (an ideology you clearly have sympathy with)
Literally lol'd, good job.

>>5532809
>and severely retarded the progress of the Chinese people.
You can't be serious.

>>5532886
This post is so ironic that I have to wonder if it's just reverse trolling.

>>5533235
Again, nothing intelligent to say.

>>5533182

>Implying it does
Sure, leftism starts cosmopolitan, but once it gets power it usually goes nationalist for pragmatic reasons.

As for the initial leftist disdain for nationalism: Leftism, as a reaction against established power structures, is critical of national and tribal identity- a source of established power structures. Criticism of nationalism, tradition, inherited cultural practices is essential to what a leftism is at its genesis.

>>5533279
>implying that what people say is always true

'Communism', like any other concept, has qualifications that have to be met in order to be considered 'communism'. If I say I am a cat, it does not make me a cat. If Pol Pot says that Cambodia under his rule is communist, it does not make it communist.

>>5533279

To be fair that's like criticizing Catholics for Mormons, and Seven Day Adventists for Lutherans.

>>5531833
People call it brocialism. It's white guys who want to rebel and be radical leftists but are threatened by a lot of the identity stuff radical leftism includes.

Keep >>>/pol/lution on >>>/pol/

>>5533269
>i'm a communist but nationalist conservatives are better than communists

negro por favor

>>5533252
its reverse libruls

>>5533341
>nationalist conservatism is better than totalitarianism masquerading as communism

Correction.

>>5533323
Unless the point is that this sort of violence is a predictable result and a structural necessity of a command economy. Giving that kind of power to a state or vanguard always ends badly.

If a libertarian came in here and told you that structural poverty would go away if only the state would stop providing welfare to corporations and lumpenproletariat, you'd likely argue market economies have always had structural poverty and you can't distinguish away historical reality from your favored ideology.

>>5533312
I don't have a bone to pick with communism or socialism (I'm a decentralist, but that doesn't matter), but I object to what you're saying about language. If a speech community calls something communism, that has to be contended with. Speech communities define terms, not language authorities or God or whoever else. Not even dictionaries really, except insofar that a dictionary gets its definition from a corpus that reflects usage.

I don't mind people in good faith arguing, "That's not communism because...," but it's more realistic to accept that there are communisms and to follow and define your own.

It's like listening to jazz (but with fewer dead bodies). If you think Sidney Bechet is great and Evan Parker is whack, then that's fine, but you're being unrealistic if you think you can prevent people from calling Evan Parker "jazz," or if you think that your thinking so somehow makes what Evan Parker plays not jazz.

Or consider anarchism. I know that decentralism is a variety of anarchism, but that doesn't mean that when people say "anarchy" to mean "chaos" and "disorder" or even "complete absence of government" that I'd be doing anything productive to say, "That's not REAL anarchy."

>>5533386
No, communism is an idea with specific qualifications which can be found in the theory of communism. I reject what others would consider communism and will argue for my own position. You say it's realistic to consider all historical definitions of communism to be of equal merit, but I don't believe it is.

In terms of your jazz analogy, if there were a group of people who seriously considered Wagner's music to be a form of jazz, I would disagree and say it that it doesn't meet 'x, y and z' conditions for being described as jazz. I wouldn't think: 'oh well, I guess their opinion is as valid as mine' because that opinion is ridiculous.

>>5531833
>liberals
>reactionary positions

>>5533440
So if communism were tried and failed, would it fail to be communism? Perhaps Republicans just need more power and then we'll all live in a Republican utopia where everyone is happy and productive because they join the military, get a job, go to church, and start a family?

You guys

>>5533459
>So if communism were tried and failed, would it fail to be communism?
Yes, as the 20th century has shown.

>Perhaps Republicans just need more power and then we'll all live in a Republican utopia where everyone is happy and productive because they join the military, get a job, go to church, and start a family?
Well, that's not a utopia that I believe in, so no. What's your point?

>>5533182
>>5532878

He's absolutely right tho. It wouldn't be so bad if it was actually moralism per se, because that would imply a set of principles and the will to stand by them. But most of the times this argument is used, it's merely false indignation that people evoke as a mean to shut down debate.

First of all, there's not an academic consensus on the number of victims of most of these regimes. The statistics thrown around are often cold-war figures tainted by politics that have not been updated. They were made when the USSR and marxist-leninists regimes were still alive and well, so western researchers were denied access to many important data and left with plenty of empty spaces to fill with the worst assumptions they could realistically come up with. This is not to engage in some kind of weird denialism and say Mao didn't go apeshit at the end of his government and Stalin didn't kill a lot of people, but this is important precisely because people don't think about this at all. They use numbers without any degree of scepticism, and when you tell them that more conservative researchers dealing with more data often reduce these numbers by more than 50%, so, say, 10 million victims rather than 20 million, they say you think the murder of 10 million is acceptable. You either believe in inflated numbers of you're an apologist for mass murder. This is typical of petty moralists, who use wrong information with the sole purpose of shutting you down when you attempt to correct it.

The reason this bothers me is that if you take for example Hitler, you could NEVER say 15 million jews died with a straight face. You'd immediately be accused of exaggerating figures. This shows there's a general unwillingness to engage with truth when we're discussing the Reds, and it gets worse because you're not allowed to discuss anything past that. People rationalise the Fascist regimes to come up with lessons and they are often positive lessons. You wouldn't discredit the post-war growth on the basis that economists often studied these regimes and learned with them, because after all Fascists were allowed a degree of power over the economy that liberal democracies could only dream of, and after the war, when western governments were bigger than usual they could use Schacht and co as reference to not have to improvise themselves during reconstruction, they happily did so with no protest. If the war against Fascism was a war of political economy, we'd have lost, because their proto-Keynesianism resembles a lot the way we arranged our own economy in the 50s and 60s.

>>5533182
>>5532878
>>5533477

(cont)

Similar lessons could easily be taken from Mao, for example: life expectancy doubled in 20 years, infant mortality that was rampant met with western standards by the end of his government, literacy rate increased from 15 to almost 90%. The hyperinflation the nationalists faced was easily fixed by the Communists after they nationalized the banks. And where Chiang's attempts of modernisation were frustrated by tradition and superstition, Mao's succeeded because he knew how to engage and affect culture. More importantly, he saw the flaws of the Soviet model and started to move towards a more liberalized enterprise by the end of his life. Mao himself laid the foundations of post-Maoist China.

Keep in mind, also, that yes: dictators are bad, murder is bad, we know. But how much do you really know about any of the governments you dismiss as "tyrannical"? If you were ignorant in american history and filled with biased preconceptions, I could easily fool you into thinking Lincoln was a tyrant who violated the constitution and killed hundreds of thousands to fanatically implement his slaveless utopia. If you see things like that, you'll be stuck with the assumption that the best government is the passive government that sees the status quo as sacred and believes there's nothing in the world wrong enough that could be changed by methods that are perhaps violent but moral. This may be the truth of somebody living in historically rich nations, but it wasn't that of the worker in Tsarist Russia, peasant in Nationalist China, or the petty bourgeoisie in pre-revolutionary France.

>>5533182
>>5532878
>>5533477
>>5533484

(cont)

Many of those tyrants were not entitled to rule by any criteria we know: blood, wealth, power. They were leaders by the merit of intellect alone: Castro, Mao, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, etc. They were fighting governments financed by foreign capital, supported by foreign powers, legitimized by monarchical heritage and military structure, with a standing army and a state budget, and their troops were poor people who saw no hope of change in the system they lived in. If they thought violence was a necessary method, who are we to say they're wrong? And if violence continue to be a component of their government, that is explained by power balance alone: the communists were finished after the last one of them was arrested or shot. The capitalists, when defeated, had foreign capital to deal with, who wanted their nations, labour and resources open for sale at cheap price, as the old government provided them.

You can't hold them by the same moral standards you'd hold Churchill or Roosevelt. And if you do, you must at least understand the conditions and context to understand their actions. Don't dismiss it as crazy depotism and ideological fanaticism because those of us who read about them know they were far more level-headed than westerns critics give them credit. And if that was the solution they came up with, then there's a mistake we can learn from. And the only way we can do that is if we finally move past MUH 100 MILLION and start studying these regimes objectively.

>>5533368
>implying that state socialists don't view their governments as a necessary transitions but as actual endgame communism

ayy

>>5533476
>Yes, as the 20th century has shown.
state socialism has been tried. not communism

>>5533279

For the same reason many hate mafia/cults.
Admittedly they do serve certain purposes for their members, but they're overall based on our lowest common denominators.

>>5533477
>>5533484
>>5533496
excellent posting

>>5533477
>>5533484
>>5533496
This is what makes /lit/ good.

>>5533440
I didn't make a relativist argument that says anything goes. I said it depends on the speech community. There's no authority that determines a term's meaning beyond the pressure of a speech community. Even if you said, well I ascribe to the definition given by card-carrying communists, you'd have to contend with the fact that communists don't all agree about what communism is and that many accept that there will be differences of opinion about what it is and choose to be more specific rather than say, "THAT'S not communism!"

>>5533440
And that's just it: there's no considerable body of people who say Wagner is jazz. The conditions are defined by the communities who label things "jazz," including people who hate jazz (and I'd say they very rarely misidentify something that isn't jazz as "jazz"). The fact that there are conflicts about a word's meaning is just a reality of language.

>>5528186
>>5528089
we have a little of it here in Scotland too.

Its a cultural cringe, but also a cultural swagger. No scot would dare make claims about his own nation, but will happily allow themselves to be flattered by muh heratige Americans comparing the deceleration of arbroath to their own declaration of independence and so on.

I suppose people often fall back on these cliches in order to further differentiate themselves from a percived encroachment sort of mending of british isles culture, and also anglophone culture. Starting to happen to the english in this new internet connected world too. Tea XD Keep Calm and Carry on etc. As we become more globalised we want to distinguish ourselves as something special.

>>5533477
>>5533484
>>5533496

Absolutely based.

>>5533929
>>5533930
>10/05/14(Sun)00:19:22
>10/05/14(Sun)00:19:22

>>5528089
well bugger me if the Irish aren't the most lazy, useless, thickskulled, and ridiculous race if men. I'd daren't even class them as Europeans.

There's that old saying "what is an Irishman but a nigger turned inside out"

Mishima was wrong and a shitty author. He's the Japanese equivalent of Warhol in that his personality outshined his art.

>>5533459
This is a very old and boring argument, although I personally prefer the version where we must argue if theocracy is justified because theocrats are also awaiting for salvation, as communists allegedly do. I like this one because like Engels and Robespierre before him, I have a lot of sympathy for the early christians

Anyway, this argument is obviously nonsense, as we know, due to the very opposite natures of the methodology employed by theocrats (or republicans, in your inferior analogy) and the methodology employed by marxists to arrive at their conclusions

For theocrats and conservatives, a given grouping of moral ideals is an end in itself. Whether we're talking about religious ethics or traditional customs, the basic premise is that society is better off with this or that particular moral guidance, as with most non-materialistic political philosophies. Marxists, on the other hand, look at these ever-changing, incredibly subjective (despite allegedly universal) laws the same way they look at everything else in society: as byproducts of present material conditions. They deny the existence of eternal, immutable laws of economy and morality because they do not believe in a perpetual, immutable social and economic structure

Society is an organisation of productive and technological forces, a process in constant development. A particular set of ideals is only compatible with a particular historical stage, as evidenced by doctrinaire religions that are thousands of years old conforming themselves with modern theory. That method of analysis is not a political platform, is not a moral principle, is not a dogma. It's equivalent to the laws of science that fuel and allow technological innovations. And just like we have good and bad inventors, we have good and bad marxist theorists, with good and bad notions of praxis

Communism, in this scheme, is nothing but a later stage, and about your claim that it "failed", I believe mentioning that no communist leader has ever claimed to have reached it speaks for itself. Later on I could write a long, boring post about the development of socialism in Russia and how the Soviet economy assumed the format known to us, making the necessary references to the writings of its theorists and architects, but now I am too busy, for I have to go fondle my asshole.

>>5532849
>Regardless, the "muh millions of dead!" needs to stop, it's embarrassing.
Its certainly true that millions did die as a direct result of key central policy. Just as many were educated and had their life spans improved. This isnt fascist economics here, there is a direct link between collectivized agriculture (generally a pretty key component of communism, although possibly not you own) and the famines that erupted as a result. Just as clearly as the link between British colonial authority and Begal/ireland.

>>5532849
>REMEMBER THE 60 TRILLION, GOY!

>>5528001
Do you even know what neo liberalism is?

>>5528286
People in the US who describe themselves as liberal are left wing.

>>5531167
Nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with your government. A patriot loves his nation, not his government.

>>5534248
The vast majority of Chinese farmland was subject to periodic drought and flooding since before agriculture was developed- the story of China is the story of famine. That being said, and Mao himself said this, the Five Pests campaign and the fallout from the Sino-Soviet split did contribute to famine conditions in addition to the natural conditions. The former was based on unscientific assumption ("if dwindle the populations of these specific pests, crops should be able to grow better," without considering that those pests, namely the kind of bird they targeted, were eating worse pests like locusts) though the latter was pretty much unavoidable, outside of kowtowing to the USSR and basically giving up the revolution. And people did die from these errors, but this /has/ to be understood /with/ the fact that the commune system was a huge success and prevented widespread starvation (even if there was widespread hunger; these aren't the same). It also needs to be said that the peasantry recovered from this period rather quickly (it was a 2-3 year) whereas the results would've really been as bad as anti-communist critics make it out to be. It also needs to be said that Mao plot to starve the peasantry - his political base - as if he was some sort of monster. Did the US gov't deliberately try to starve their people with their failed homestead policies, resulting in the Dust Bowl epidemic? I don't think the problem is collectivization, nor that there's necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution nor diagnosis. In hindsight, some of the mistakes made in Mao's time were avoidable in the sense that proper knowledge would've prevented them from happening, but I think it's taking the situation out of context to paint Mao as a bumbling, power-hungry idiot that didn't care and made stupid decisions for stupid reasons (not saying -you're- saying that, but that's certainly a popular attitude).

"I'm Prepared To Give My Life For This Or Any Country"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-prepared-to-give-my-life-for-this-or-any-countr,11298/

>>5534740
Honestly the most damning thing about Nationalism is how arbitrary it is. A nation only exists if people believe in and identifies with it, and people usually happen to identify with the nation that just so happens to have the rule of law over the geographical area they just so happened to be born in.

>>5534560
>Mao as a bumbling, power-hungry idiot that didn't care and made stupid decisions for stupid reasons

That is exactly the right way to look at it. No period in the history of China has ever been as horrific, not even the Japanese occupation, and Mao was mostly responsible.

>>5534803
That is retarded and mostly false. Not even Chinese people believe that shit.

>>5534803
>No period in the history of China has ever been as horrific,
Except all of them before him.

>>5527911
>Why does the left hate nationalism so much?

"if we can't have a homeland, no one can! wah!"

>>5534888
Wow, good one.

>>5534803
People only give Mao this much shit because he's a communist. There have been many famines throughout history, they were basically the norm for pre-industrial societies, and were even the norm for early industrializing societies. But nobody runs around screaming that capitalism is shit because of the Irish famine of the 1840s. Rarely do people even attribute the famine to malice. But if that industrializing country is socialist it's clearly the ideology's fault.

Whatever, you're just another amerifat taking his glut of cheeseburgers are the historical and global norm.

Maybe Churchill et al. sorta belonged to the same club.

http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

- The division left and right is a Divide et impera strategy.
- Nationalism, is a Divide et impera strategy in itself.

>>5534888
that last line omg

you were born on this piece of dirt versus that piece of dirt

congratulations

>>5534983
Epic ruse m8

http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/the-people.html

http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/nationalism.htm

>>5527911
Modern leftists do, but it's not inherent to leftism.

>>5535052
says you